From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 14 13:09:36 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA22064; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:58:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from titan.vansys.com (xenon.vansys.com [207.6.137.193])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3121217EAE
for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:57:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:57:43 -0800
Message-ID: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB505FABC@titan.vansys.com>
Thread-Topic: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
Thread-Index: AcFtPOILMP7wToiZRcybRy+fuNdF4gAABU4gAAR6+QA=
From: "Rick Vandenberg"
To:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I know that many lists group addresses by MX to make delivery more
efficient. I've always done this by the name, not the IP address, and
I'm wondering if this is still the norm.
I'm in the process of developing a little spam filtering program, and
it's not only able to filter mail for my domain, but for anyone. The
problem is that it works in real time, sitting between the the client
and the "real" SMTP server. As such, it doesn't do any type of
store-and-forward routine, and thus can only accept and deliver mail
that is truly destined for the server to which it's connecting. It
determines which server to connect to by looking at the domain of the
address in the RCPT command and cross-referencing to a database we
maintain.
For example, this is acceptable, because we host both domains,
RCPT TO:
RCPT TO:
But this would not be acceptable:
RCPT TO:
RCPT TO:
If it were to accept mail - in a single session - that is destined for
more than one SMTP server, it would be unable to deliver to all the
recipients. In the latter example above, the second address would
generate a temporary failure response, which I'd like to avoid. I also
cannot dump everything to a smart host, because the smart host would
always deliver it right back to the filter.
So what I'd like to do is setup CNAME records for each domain that will
use the filter, and have them all point to the same place.=20
For example:
greatcircle.com MX 0 greatcircle.inbound.vansys.com
greatcircle.com MX 100 honor.greatcircle.com
vansys.com MX 0 vansys.inbound.vansys.com
vansys.com MX 10 titan.vansys.com
vansys.inbound.vansys.com CNAME
aurorafilter.vansys.com
greatcircle.inbound.vansys.com CNAME aurorafilter.vansys.com
aurorafilter.vansys.com A 207.6.137.???
My hope is that the MTA's out there will deliver the second example
message in two separate session.
Any thoughts?=20
Rick Vandenberg
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 14 14:25:05 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA23289; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:24:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6515317EAE
for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 27945 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 17:24:15 -0500
Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 14 Nov 2001 22:23:53 -0000
Date: 14 Nov 2001 17:24:15 -0500
Message-ID:
From: "John R Levine"
To: "Rick Vandenberg"
Cc: "list-managers@greatcircle.com"
Subject: Re: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
In-Reply-To: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB505FABC@titan.vansys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> If it were to accept mail - in a single session - that is destined for
> more than one SMTP server, it would be unable to deliver to all the
> recipients.
Then it's pretty badly broken. SMTP is defined as a store and forward
protocol, if you accept mail for a domain at all, you have to accept it
mixed in with all the other domains for which you accept mail.
> So what I'd like to do is setup CNAME records for each domain that will
> use the filter, and have them all point to the same place. ...
> vansys.inbound.vansys.com CNAME aurorafilter.vansys.com
> greatcircle.inbound.vansys.com CNAME aurorafilter.vansys.com
> aurorafilter.vansys.com A 207.6.137.???
>
> My hope is that the MTA's out there will deliver the second example
> message in two separate session.
Sometimes it'll work (if the sending system runs qmail, every delivery is
separate anyway), sometimes it won't, depending on how the particular MTA
is written.
If I were intent on implementing this bad idea, I'd assign a bunch of
virtual IPs to the machine doing the filtering, and give each incoming
domain an MX that resolves to a different IP, which should prevent
incoming sessions with recipients in multiple domains since they will
appear to the outside to be different hosts. Then I'd get to work
as soon as possible rewriting the filter so it handles SMTP correctly.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
Write for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 14 15:09:33 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA23804; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from titan.vansys.com (xenon.vansys.com [207.6.137.193])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168D317EAE
for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:00:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:59:57 -0800
Message-ID: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592C5@titan.vansys.com>
Thread-Topic: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
Thread-Index: AcFtWx24yy2JIK+kTAyzn0XmZfF8pgAAmc2A
From: "Rick Vandenberg"
To:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com]=20
>=20
> if you accept mail for a domain at all,=20
> you have to accept it mixed in with all the other domains for=20
> which you accept mail.
I agree completely; what I'm trying to find out is if any MTA's take an
extra step and group by the IP address rather than simply the MX host
name.
As far as the store-and-forward aspect, I understand your point, but the
purpose of this filter to to analyze the SMTP protocol, in real time,
and make decisions about whether or not the client is a spammer. In
effect, it is a proxy; for each session it is connected to both the
client & the server. It looks at lots of things; the HELO, MAIL & RCPT
commands, as well as other sources of data - our SQL database, DNS
blacklists, spamtraps & what-have-you. At some point, hopefully before
the DATA command is issued, the points are tallied up and as soon as a
threshold it passed, all SMTP commands are rejected. This can happen at
any stage of the session.
It needs to connect to the "real" SMTP server because the filter also
monitors the response to the commands and draws information from them.
The whole point is that sometimes the commands and responses pass
through untouched, and sometimes the filter acts on the behalf of the
SMTP server.
It _could_ do store & forward, but I'm not going there; that defeats the
purpose of this as a filter and not an MTA.
> If I were intent on implementing this bad idea, I'd assign a=20
> bunch of virtual IPs to the machine doing the filtering
Thanks for that advice; I was hoping to not need several /24's just to
implement this. I guess I need to experiment with a few test
subscriptions.
A question - why do you think this is a bad idea? I'm assuming I didn't
make a clear-enough description in the first place.
--
Rick
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 14 16:39:35 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA25076; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 02F5B17EAE
for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:31:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 3919 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 19:31:13 -0500
Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 15 Nov 2001 00:30:51 -0000
Date: 14 Nov 2001 19:31:13 -0500
Message-ID:
From: "John R Levine"
To: "Rick Vandenberg"
Cc: "list-managers@greatcircle.com"
Subject: RE: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
In-Reply-To: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592C5@titan.vansys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> > if you accept mail for a domain at all,
> > you have to accept it mixed in with all the other domains for
> > which you accept mail.
>
> A question - why do you think this is a bad idea? I'm assuming I didn't
> make a clear-enough description in the first place.
Filtering mail proxies are a fine idea, there are lots of them around.
Proxies purporting to receive SMTP mail that can't actually accept
legitimate RFC821-conformant incoming mail are a bad idea.
The RFC says that CNAMEs are resolved to underlying names, so multiple
CNAMEs for the same name are unlikely to get you separate deliveries. It
doesn't say anything either way about several different names resolving to
the same IP, so you'd be at the mercy of present and future MTA
programmers.
You know, there's no reason why your proxy can't open multiple outgoing
connections and run them in parallel, if you want to sniff the underlying
servers.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
Write for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 14 16:54:49 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA25393; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from titan.vansys.com (xenon.vansys.com [207.6.137.193])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0657E17EAE
for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:54:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:53:58 -0800
Message-ID: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB505FABF@titan.vansys.com>
Thread-Topic: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
Thread-Index: AcFta6HnjYw8wGVvTVmJqumzZdx0QQABBU6Q
From: "Rick Vandenberg"
To:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@sirena.org.uk]=20
>=20
> You might want to take a look at SAUCE. =20
That's pretty close, thanks. Too bad I've never used TCL :) My
thingamajig will be a little more generic than SAUCE, but the goals seem
to be pretty much the same.
Thanks again for the pointer.
--
Rick
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 14 17:09:34 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA25378; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from titan.vansys.com (xenon.vansys.com [207.6.137.193])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C0517EAE
for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:51:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:51:44 -0800
Message-ID: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592C6@titan.vansys.com>
Thread-Topic: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
Thread-Index: AcFtbNGCVuRIMRx0QoKoQ4WPqD8wcgAAjKzg
From: "Rick Vandenberg"
To:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com]=20
>=20
> It doesn't say anything either way=20
> about several different names resolving to the same IP, so=20
> you'd be at the mercy of present and future MTA programmers.
>=20
> You know, there's no reason why your proxy can't open=20
> multiple outgoing connections and run them in parallel, if=20
> you want to sniff the underlying servers.
That's a very good point; if I use a different IP for each proxy, I can
make the connections immediately upon the start of the session. If I
choose to do things in parallel, the connection to the underlying
servers must be done at the RCPT command. I'll have to think about the
pros & cons of each.
Thanks John...
--
Rick Vandenberg
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 14 17:24:34 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA25804; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from titan.vansys.com (xenon.vansys.com [207.6.137.193])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F7F17EAE
for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:17:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:17:26 -0800
Message-ID: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592C7@titan.vansys.com>
Thread-Topic: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
Thread-Index: AcFtbNGCVuRIMRx0QoKoQ4WPqD8wcgABa0BQ
From: "Rick Vandenberg"
To:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I just wanted to say thanks for making me dig into the whole DNS issue a
little more. The example I gave:
vansys.com MX 0 vansys.inbound.vansys.com
vansys.inbound.vansys.com CNAME aurorafilter.vansys.com
aurorafilter.vansys.com A 207.6.137.???
Breaks RFC 974/1034/1912 (MX hosts cannot be CNAMES) and is an
amateurish mistake I ashamed of. I'll stick to A records from now on.=20
--
Rick
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 14 23:54:46 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA29714; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:54:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B94F17EC6
for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1]
by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 164HMb-0005hE-00; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:55:09 -0800
To: "Rick Vandenberg"
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: A question about grouping deliveries by MX
In-Reply-To: Message from "Rick Vandenberg"
of "Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:57:43 PST." <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB505FABC@titan.vansys.com>
References: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB505FABC@titan.vansys.com>
X-message-flag: Are you sure that Microsoft Outlook is good enough for you to use?
X-Accepted-File-Formats: text/plain preferred, Postscript and PDF accepted - *NO* Micosoft Office files please.
X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9
YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\
X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff
X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:55:09 -0800
Message-ID: <21899.1005810909@kanga.nu>
From: J C Lawrence
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:57:43 -0800
Rick Vandenberg wrote:
> My hope is that the MTA's out there will deliver the second
> example message in two separate session.
This is unreliable. Its not specced in a standard, given the wide
range of current MTAs in use its not unreasonable to think that one
may already do this, and its impractical to attempt any sort of
reasonable survey of extant MTAs to see what they do, especially
given the widespread popularity of non-standard/custom/oddball
performance patchsets and home-grown MTAs at larger sites.
More specifically: I'd consider this broken behaviour.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 15 23:42:19 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA18139; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:32:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.vjs.org (achilles.vjs.org [162.33.212.173])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D895717ECD
for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:32:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.205] (162.33.212.171) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP
(Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:29:09 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592C7@titan.vansys.com>
References: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592C7@titan.vansys.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:31:57 -0500
To:
From: Vince Sabio
Subject: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Okay, perhaps it could use a better acronym. It's 0200, I just got
off an airplane ("Look ma, no wake turbulence!"), and that's the best
I could think of at the moment.
Credit where credit is due: The original suggestion for this idea was
Rick Vandenberg's, posted to SPAM-L. Initially, I thought it was
merely an amusing post on a more or less amusing thread.
But no more. I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is An
Idea Whose Time Has Come(tm).
The original post to SPAM-L, repeated here without permission, except
that I'm pretty sure Rick won't mind :
** Sometime around 12:03 -0800 11/15/01, Rick Vandenberg said:
>[Only_slightly_tongue_in_cheek_mode = ON]
>
>I propose that a new on-line database be created, listing the email
>addresses of people who have exhibited any of the following behaviour
>with respect to lists:
>
>A) Inability to unsubscribe through whatever mechanism exists (this
>might be a result of no web access, no email access, whatever other
>technical reason there may be)
>
>B) Abuse complaints for no apparently reasonable explanation
>
>C) Clueless activity
>
>Then, whenever some subscription or unsubscription activity is
>generated, you programmatically query the database and if a match is
>found, you flag the activity and make sure the list owners take a close
>look at whatever is happening.
>
>This would help locate problems before they become a big issue. Of
>course, this would probably be viewed as an invasion of privacy by most
>folks.
Hell, MAPS is "an invasion of privacy." I propose we use the MAPS
model -- [pre-authorized] list owners can post to, and query, the
system. Perhaps the requirements to be able to query will not be
quite as strict as those to post to the system.
Other thoughts on this thread, also posted by other list-managers
members, also re-posted here without permission:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 07:38:52PM -0500, Nick Simicich wrote:
> Can we add people who subscribe to a list that sends them an info file that
> prohibits test messages in LARGE PRINT, and then they immediately send a
> test message to the list to "verify that they are subscribed"?
** Sometime around 20:30 -0500 11/15/01, Rich Kulawiec said:
>Oh my yes. Yes, yes, yes and YES.
>
>How about people that (a) do not read the large print notice that specifies
>that all traffic should be in ASCII text and (b) that means no HTML
>and (c) that all attachments, including HTML, will be stripped from
>all messages, and then (1) send a message consisting entirely of an HTML
>attachment and then (2) claim the mailing list is broken because
>their message came out blank?
>
>How about the person who (a) sent a message to the list (b) didn't see
>it come through the list in a few minutes so (c) he sent it again
>and then (d) repeated steps a, b, and c [roughly] 30-40 times in
>rapid succession before moving on to (e) forwarding me a copy of every
>single one of them accompanied by a claim that the mailing list
>was broken when in fact (1) his ISP's outbound mail queue had been
>temporarily and purposefully halted while they shuffled a few things
>that night and (2) once that queue was restarted, ALL of those messages
>began to flush through very, very quickly, and (3) I got nastygrams from
>*other* subscribers asking me why I hadn't pre-emptively removed
>the first person from the list "as soon as he started this nonsense".
>
>There. I do believe it's working; good. That'll keep you going for now.
>
>:-)
>
>(There is no spam, you are receding)
>---Rsk
My comments on SPAM-L:
I can implement it. I think that the list managers who can post to
the system would have to be approved, probably through some form of
nomination from a list owner who is already approved to use the
system. As we've seen recently, you can't let just anyone post to the
system. Posts would have to be made via FTP for security.
The lists could easily be downloadable via e-mail (what else?) using
an AR, and then just dropped into the list server's "banned" database.
I can implement the entire system with some simple perl scripts. Only
problem is, I'm about to start a geographic (i.e., 3-D) relocation,
and won't have time to get to this until probably January. If someone
else antes up in the meantime, I'd be happy to provide server space
for the rig.
(The more I think about this, the more I think it will have to be FTP
both ways, in order to control who may access the list.)
Is it perhaps just that I'm running on too little sleep, or does this
genuinely sound like a pretty good idea? Sure, there are enough
clueless idiots on the 'Net that the cross-correlation between lists
might be small -- but even one or two "saves" could be significant.
Heck, one in particular would have saved me some headaches *and*
saved SPAM-L a 126-post thread on merits of contacting the owner of a
mailing list (to which you have been subscribed for several years)
_prior_ to filing a spam complaint.
Comments welcome. But please, no spam complaints. ;-)
__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio vince@vjs.org
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 03:57:44 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA23828; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.97])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D7B17EB0
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:51:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ruby.ccmr.cornell.edu (IDENT:0@ruby.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.115])
by mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04439;
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:52:48 -0500
Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost)
by ruby.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA23241;
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:51:46 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: ruby.ccmr.cornell.edu: mitch owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:51:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Mitch Collinsworth
To: Vince Sabio
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I guess for my money I'd rather see a clueless ISP database. You know,
the ones that send NDN back to the list posting address or to the
person who posted the message to the list, rather than to the envelope
from address.
-Mitch
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 05:27:26 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA24652; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 05:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B151117ECD
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 05:18:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fantasy (cosell.gva.net [65.164.103.253])
by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fAGDIpp15095
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:51 -0500
Message-Id: <200111161318.fAGDIpp15095@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To:
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:49 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
In-reply-to:
References: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592C7@titan.vansys.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.0(snapshot 20010925) (server02.rev.net)
X-Archived: msg.1005916731.Cy7z5F@server02.rev.net
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 16 Nov 2001, at 2:31, Vince Sabio wrote:
> ** Sometime around 12:03 -0800 11/15/01, Rick Vandenberg said:
>
> >[Only_slightly_tongue_in_cheek_mode = ON]
> >
> >I propose that a new on-line database be created, listing the email
> >addresses of people who have exhibited any of the following behaviour
> >with respect to lists:
How about guys who have their 'vacation' programs set up to send their
'I'm away' message to the list. [and can there be some kind of "MLMDP"
for the lusers whose vacation program doesn't even detect their own
message and so puts the list into a loop?]
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:21:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.205] (162.33.212.171) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP
(Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:18:37 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:13:01 -0500
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Vince Sabio
Subject: Re: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
** Sometime around 06:51 -0500 11/16/01, Mitch Collinsworth sent everyone:
>I guess for my money I'd rather see a clueless ISP database. You know,
>the ones that send NDN back to the list posting address or to the
>person who posted the message to the list, rather than to the envelope
>from address.
The only problem with this is the rate at which the db would get
stale. I've written to ISPs that have such misconfigured systems, and
perhaps 1/3rd of the time there's someone with a pulse at the other
end, and the problem is fixed. Once the problem is fixed (and noting
that "fixed" means "nothing comes back"), the list owner would have
to remember to check the db to see if the ISP is [still] in it, and
issue a remove.
Clueless users tend to be considerably more permanent.
__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio vince@vjs.org
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 07:56:08 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA26006; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sluggo.ptk.org (sluggo.ptk.org [208.226.43.8])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E65DB17ECF
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 23552 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2001 15:49:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO 05FH8) (10.5.0.115)
by sluggo.ptk.org with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 15:49:28 -0000
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20011116094919.010a9aa0@mail.ptk.org>
X-Sender: lucketbg@mail.ptk.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:49:19 -0600
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Bill Luckett
Subject: Advice on list manager
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Hi,
I'm using ezmlm/qmail right now and management, , wants me to change
the To: header (or any header) on our lists to show the recipient's real
name, Phi Theta Kappa member number and email address.
So instead of:
"To: some_list@ptk.org "
Management wants:
"To: Bill Luckett member #12345 "
Well, ezmlm/qmail can't do it. Does anyone know a list manager/MTA combo
that can do this?
*Please note that I'm not asking for a howto*. I'll go to the appropriate
list for that. I'm just asking of anyone can recommend a manager that might
be able to do it.
Thanks,
*******************************************
Bill Luckett
Director of Information Systems
Phi Theta Kappa International Honor Society
1625 Eastover Dr.
Jackson, MS 39211
bill.luckett@ptk.org
Ph : 601-984-3559
Fax: 601-984-3506
*******************************************
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 09:11:28 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA26777; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail15b.boca15-verio.com (mail15b.boca15-verio.com [208.55.91.59])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7171017ECF
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:54:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.wingedpig.com (131.103.226.233)
by mail15b.boca15-verio.com (RS ver 1.0.60s) with SMTP id 051031019
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:53:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3BF543BF.1040104@snoovler.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:50:07 -0800
From: Mark Fletcher
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011013
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
References: <200111160900.BAA19110@honor.greatcircle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Loop-Detect: 1
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Vince Sabio wrote
>Is it perhaps just that I'm running on too little sleep, or does this
>genuinely sound like a pretty good idea?
>
The problem is that getting a new email address is trivial. We learned
this right quick at ONElist. Managers would ban an email address from
their list, or we would deactivate an email address so that it couldn't
subscribe to any list on the system. The offender would just go get
another free email address.
I think it'd be a more constructive use of time to make things easier
for the clueless users of the world. I tend to believe that if someone
is having a problem with an aspect of your list
(subbing/unsubbing/sending HTML when you don't want them to), then that
indicates an issue with *your* UI or software, not them.
Mark
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 09:26:09 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA27165; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from titan.vansys.com (xenon.vansys.com [207.6.137.193])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A72017EAE
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:17:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0
Subject: RE: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:16:52 -0800
Message-ID: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592CD@titan.vansys.com>
Thread-Topic: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
Thread-Index: AcFufxAmlx3Nt/F6Q8ekXn0rUrAq1AAQCVyw
From: "Rick Vandenberg"
To:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> From: Vince Sabio [mailto:vince@vjs.org]=20
>=20
> But no more. I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is An=20
> Idea Whose Time Has Come(tm).
I thought so too, but was hesitant to say so in SPAM-L :) Just call me
meek.
Btw - nice name Vince - "CURES".=20
> My comments on SPAM-L:
>=20
> The lists could easily be downloadable via e-mail (what else?) using=20
> an AR, and then just dropped into the list server's "banned" database.
I was envisioning some slightly less drastic, and more palatable to
privacy watchdogs than an outright "blacklist". I definitely agree that
access to the list should be restricted. And perhaps that restriction
should be limited to people who belong to (tada!) - "The Association of
List Owners". Just another idea floating in the back of my head. But I
digress;=20
I think such a database should different types of listings &
corresponding actions. Examples:
Type =3D=3D> Action=09
1. Cluelessness =3D> flag posts for attention my owner/moderator/editor
2. Technical issues =3D> flag posts for attention my
owner/moderator/editor, may have trouble with unsubscribes
3. Abusive behaviour =3D> whatever the list owner likes
#3 is where this begins to break down. Saying someone is "abusive" is a
judgement call that may bring civil liabilities to bear on either the
person who=20
>=20
> I can implement the entire system with some simple perl scripts. Only=20
> problem is, I'm about to start a geographic (i.e., 3-D) relocation,=20
> and won't have time to get to this until probably January. If someone=20
> else antes up in the meantime, I'd be happy to provide server space=20
> for the rig.
>=20
> (The more I think about this, the more I think it will have to be FTP=20
> both ways, in order to control who may access the list.)
>=20
> Is it perhaps just that I'm running on too little sleep, or does this=20
> genuinely sound like a pretty good idea? Sure, there are enough=20
> clueless idiots on the 'Net that the cross-correlation between lists=20
> might be small -- but even one or two "saves" could be significant.=20
> Heck, one in particular would have saved me some headaches *and*=20
> saved SPAM-L a 126-post thread on merits of contacting the owner of a=20
> mailing list (to which you have been subscribed for several years)=20
> _prior_ to filing a spam complaint.
>=20
> Comments welcome. But please, no spam complaints. ;-)
>=20
>=20
> ______________________________________________________________
> ____________
> Vince Sabio =20
> vince@vjs.org
>=20
>=20
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 10:11:10 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA27572; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from titan.vansys.com (xenon.vansys.com [207.6.137.193])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B5017EDD
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:56:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0
Subject: RE: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:55:44 -0800
Message-ID: <5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592CE@titan.vansys.com>
Thread-Topic: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
Thread-Index: AcFufxAmlx3Nt/F6Q8ekXn0rUrAq1AAQCVywAADWvHA=
From: "Rick Vandenberg"
To:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Sorry for the repost, my *cluelessness* led me hit send before I was
finished. Ironic, eh?
> From: Vince Sabio [mailto:vince@vjs.org]
>=20
> But no more. I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is An
> Idea Whose Time Has Come(tm).
I thought so too, but was hesitant to say so in SPAM-L :)=20
Just call me meek.
=20
Btw - nice name Vince - "CURES".=20
> My comments on SPAM-L:
>=20
> The lists could easily be downloadable via e-mail (what else?) using
> an AR, and then just dropped into the list server's=20
> "banned" database.
I was envisioning some slightly less drastic, and more palatable to
privacy watchdogs than an outright "blacklist". I definitely agree that
access to the list should be restricted. And perhaps that restriction
should be limited to people who belong to (tada!) - "The Association of
List Owners". Just another idea floating in the back of my head. But I
digress;=20
I think such a database should different types of listings &
corresponding actions. Examples:
Type =3D=3D> Action=09
1. Cluelessness =3D> flag posts for attention by owner/moderator/editor.
Maybe extra instruction is needed (ie - learn how to use your vacation
program correctly)
2. Technical issues =3D> flag posts for attention my
owner/moderator/editor; user may have trouble with=20
unsubscribes
3. Trusted users =3D> flag users that can be trusted not to spam. (on my
system, I can individually control whether members are moderated or not;
all new members are moderated until I see fit to let them post freely. A
"trusted user" flag would let me let these people post freely right from
the start)
4. Abused users =3D> flag people who have been subscription-bombed,
joe-jobbed, or otherwise attacked; this would permit the list-owner to
identify (in real-time) these people and help prevent their systems from
being used against the person.
5. Abusive behaviour =3D> whatever the list owner likes
#5 is where this begins to break down. Saying someone is "abusive" is a
judgement call that may bring civil liabilities to bear on either the
person who submitted the user, or on the CURES operators. And "abusive"
is contextual, and in the eyes of the beholder; what constitutes normal
rhetoric on SPAM-L most certainly is abusive in any other forum. I
still think such a system is useful, but its purpose should be limited
to identifying those users who need additional care and attention.
Also, on most lists, people need the freedom to express themselves
without worry that they may fall into some secret ALO blacklist. So
there are other issues as well.
I also think the system should be query-based; if it extends past being
a "banned users" list, for example, to include #3 above, then it becomes
a target for unscrupulous people who want to get their hands on a list
of addresses.=20
#4 above would be most useful in a real-time environment: for every
subscription request, do a query against a central server. The server
checks it's database to see if other subscriptions have occurred in the
past nnn hours/days for this user, and returns a rating that indicates
how likely it is that the subscription is not legitimate. To make it
fast and effective through firewalls, the lookup would need to use HTTP.
I've got lots of other ideas about this that expand the concept even
more, but I need to get back to work now. I may get down to business in
the next few weeks and develop #4, if anyone thinks it's useful. Let me
know what you think.
--
Rick Vandenberg
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 10:26:13 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA27849; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.vjs.org (achilles.vjs.org [162.33.212.173])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEA317ECD
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.205] (162.33.212.171) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP
(Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:19:05 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20011116094919.010a9aa0@mail.ptk.org>
References: <3.0.1.32.20011116094919.010a9aa0@mail.ptk.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:21:56 -0500
To: Bill Luckett , list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Vince Sabio
Subject: Re: Advice on list manager
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
** Sometime around 09:49 -0600 11/16/01, Bill Luckett sent everyone:
>Hi,
>
>I'm using ezmlm/qmail right now and management, , wants me to change
>the To: header (or any header) on our lists to show the recipient's real
>name, Phi Theta Kappa member number and email address.
>
>So instead of:
>
>"To: some_list@ptk.org "
>
>Management wants:
>
>"To: Bill Luckett member #12345 "
Gotta love Management(tm). They're always thinking. And, of course,
therein lies the danger.
>Well, ezmlm/qmail can't do it. Does anyone know a list manager/MTA combo
>that can do this?
Lyris ("ListManager") can do it with ease. .
They have a freeware version that, IIRC, will work for lists of up to
300 members. Above that, it's payware, and it isn't cheap (well, it's
not cheap compared to ezmlm, anyway ;-).
>*Please note that I'm not asking for a howto*. I'll go to the appropriate
>list for that. I'm just asking of anyone can recommend a manager that might
>be able to do it.
FWIW, there's a pretty active list of LLM users that are happy to
help out with just about anything. Plus, there's me; I've been using
LLM for more than 4 years now.
[Dis]claimer: I know John Buckman, the developer of Lyris (now
"ListManager"), plus many of the folks at Lyris Technologies. Beyond
that, the standard disclaimer applies.
__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio vince@vjs.org
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 10:41:21 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA27950; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:32:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A0E17ECF
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:31:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA4E3502A
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:31:55 -0500 (EST)
X-America-has-resolve: yes
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011116131215.06e4ebe0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:31:47 -0500
To:
From: Nick Simicich
Subject: Re: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
In-Reply-To: <200111161318.fAGDIpp15095@mail.rev.net>
References:
<5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592C7@titan.vansys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
This is clearly an idea whose time has come.
I'd like to propose the following:
1. A mailing list be set up of volunteers who would review nominations.
2. Nominations could be made for users who disrupted mailing lists, or the
operation thereof, either through malice or cluelessness. This could
include such as we have discussed, as well as other things. The nomination
would be up to the list manager.
3. Nominations would be made through, um, a password protected web
page? An open web page? Nominators would assert that they had operational
or editorial responsibility for a mailing list and would have to provide an
example. This could include such things as submitting spam complaints to
unsubscribe, posting tests, making specious free speech arguments, and the
like.
4. The nominations would be converted to e-mail, which would be then
evaluated by the list of volunteers who would be on the mailing list.
5. If the majority of voters voted to approve the nomination, then it
would be "published".
6. Access to the published list would be by request and nomination. The
same "cabal" of volunteers who approve nominations for the list would also
approve access. However, it would be permitted for a nominee to tell a user
why they were being rejected, including revealing the nomination.
7. It needs a name. Something obvious like "clueless luser list" appeals.
8. The cabal who put people on the list would also have to hear
appeals. It could be amusing.
I'm willing to host it. Should we discuss the mechanism here or should I
set up a list to discuss the mechanism on (which would turn into the
nomination and appeal list).
Once we describe the mechanism, I will implement it. I will be willing to
include various means of access, which could include DNS, web page, and so
forth.
At 08:18 AM 2001-11-16 -0500, Bernie Cosell wrote:
>On 16 Nov 2001, at 2:31, Vince Sabio wrote:
>
> > ** Sometime around 12:03 -0800 11/15/01, Rick Vandenberg said:
> >
> > >[Only_slightly_tongue_in_cheek_mode = ON]
> > >
> > >I propose that a new on-line database be created, listing the email
> > >addresses of people who have exhibited any of the following behaviour
> > >with respect to lists:
>
>How about guys who have their 'vacation' programs set up to send their
>'I'm away' message to the list. [and can there be some kind of "MLMDP"
>for the lusers whose vacation program doesn't even detect their own
>message and so puts the list into a loop?]
>
> /Bernie\
>
>
>--
>Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
>mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
> --> Too many people, too few sheep ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960F535013
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:52:29 -0500 (EST)
X-America-has-resolve: yes
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011116133222.05a0c600@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:43:56 -0500
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Nick Simicich
Subject: Re: Advice on list manager
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20011116094919.010a9aa0@mail.ptk.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
And then what, put the e-mail list name in the reply-to? This is not so
much a matter of the mlm as being a matter of the sending mechanism. I
could do it easily with majordomo, I would just change the transmission
alias. Right now I use a hacked version of bulk mailer that does
pseudo-verp when I get a bounce I can't parse, and I use a Perl script for
my digests. I could easily hack a Perl script up to do transmission in the
form you want it in, no matter how inherently wrong it is. :-)
If you want a copy of the Perl script I use to send my digests, I'll gladly
give it to you.
At 09:49 AM 2001-11-16 -0600, Bill Luckett wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm using ezmlm/qmail right now and management, , wants me to change
>the To: header (or any header) on our lists to show the recipient's real
>name, Phi Theta Kappa member number and email address.
>
>So instead of:
>
>"To: some_list@ptk.org "
>
>Management wants:
>
>"To: Bill Luckett member #12345 "
>
>Well, ezmlm/qmail can't do it. Does anyone know a list manager/MTA combo
>that can do this?
>
>*Please note that I'm not asking for a howto*. I'll go to the appropriate
>list for that. I'm just asking of anyone can recommend a manager that might
>be able to do it.
--
War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is
worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to
fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a
miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made so by the
exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 11:11:11 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA28451; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:08:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4D417E8E
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1]
by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 164oN5-0003K5-00; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:09:51 -0800
To: Bill Luckett
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: Advice on list manager
In-Reply-To: Message from Bill Luckett
of "Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:49:19 CST." <3.0.1.32.20011116094919.010a9aa0@mail.ptk.org>
References: <3.0.1.32.20011116094919.010a9aa0@mail.ptk.org>
X-message-flag: Are you sure that Microsoft Outlook is good enough for you to use?
X-Accepted-File-Formats: text/plain preferred, Postscript and PDF accepted - *NO* Micosoft Office files please.
X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9
YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\
X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff
X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:09:51 -0800
Message-ID: <12776.1005937791@kanga.nu>
From: J C Lawrence
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:49:19 -0600
Bill Luckett wrote:
> "To: Bill Luckett member #12345 "
...
> *Please note that I'm not asking for a howto*. I'll go to the
> appropriate list for that. I'm just asking of anyone can recommend
> a manager that might be able to do it.
This is not a list manager function, this is an MTA function. Put
in a delivery time filter in your MTA to traps messages from your
list and re-writes their headers after looking up the RCPT-TO in
your DB. Exim can do this fairly easily, likely other MTAs can as
well (haven't checked).
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 12:11:37 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA29209; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F12617ECD
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:02:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 22586 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2001 15:02:16 -0500
Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 16 Nov 2001 20:01:54 -0000
Date: 16 Nov 2001 15:02:16 -0500
Message-ID:
From: "John R Levine"
To: "Vince Sabio"
Cc: "list-managers@greatcircle.com"
Subject: Re: Advice on list manager
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> >Management wants:
> >
> >"To: Bill Luckett member #12345 "
>
> Gotta love Management(tm). They're always thinking. And, of course,
> therein lies the danger.
I also suggested Lyris, but said that the real answer is "sure, we can do
that, it'll cost about $5,000 and a week's configuration work. You ready
to write the check?"
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
Write for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 12:26:15 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA29430; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:20:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.vjs.org (achilles.vjs.org [162.33.212.173])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E71917ECD
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.205] (162.33.212.171) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP
(Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:17:09 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:19:59 -0500
To:
From: Vince Sabio
Subject: Re: Advice on list manager
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
** Sometime around 15:02 -0500 11/16/01, John R Levine sent everyone:
> > >Management wants:
> > >
> > >"To: Bill Luckett member #12345 "
> >
> > Gotta love Management(tm). They're always thinking. And, of course,
> > therein lies the danger.
>
>I also suggested Lyris, but said that the real answer is "sure, we can do
>that, it'll cost about $5,000 and a week's configuration work. You ready
>to write the check?"
Egads, John, I should hope that he's planning to run his own copy
rather than use a hosted solution. (Don't get me wrong, hosted
solutions are great for large, bureaucratic, mostly clueless
organizations. American Express, Southwest Airlines, Al Qaeda,
whoops, didn't mean that last one. Hang on a sec, there's a knock at
the door, BRB...)
If you're running your own copy of Lyris, setting up the custom To:
line as Bill suggests (or, to put blame where blame is due, as Bill's
Management(tm) suggests) is pretty trivial. So yeah, a week's
configuration if you go to a hosting site. Say, come to think of it,
I'm a hosting site (of sorts), if someone is willing to pay $5000
plus a week's configuration work, *I'll* host the damned list. ;-) [1]
- Vince
[1] Just a joke. I don't actually host commercial lists. Unless, of
course, you're serious about writing a check ... ;-)
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 16 12:56:22 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA29826; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.vjs.org (achilles.vjs.org [162.33.212.173])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6933F17ECD
for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:48:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.205] (162.33.212.171) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP
(Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:45:27 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011116131215.06e4ebe0@127.0.0.1>
References:
<5441F0FB3CB5F7428D49F8D6D5CF7EB592C7@titan.vansys.com>
<5.1.0.14.2.20011116131215.06e4ebe0@127.0.0.1>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:48:17 -0500
To:
From: Vince Sabio
Subject: Re: Clueless Users Removal Exchange System
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
** Sometime around 13:31 -0500 11/16/01, Nick Simicich sent everyone:
>This is clearly an idea whose time has come.
>
>I'd like to propose the following:
Agreed on all points, comments follow as appropriate...
>1. A mailing list be set up of volunteers who would review nominations.
I nominate myself as a volunteer. :-)
>2. Nominations could be made for users who disrupted mailing lists,
>or the operation thereof, either through malice or cluelessness.
>This could include such as we have discussed, as well as other
>things. The nomination would be up to the list manager.
>
>3. Nominations would be made through, um, a password protected web
>page? An open web page?
Given this arrangement, I think an open web page -- at least
initially. If it becomes a popular site for Clueless List Managers,
petty turf wars, or the like, we can always put a password on the
page.
>Nominators would assert that they had operational or editorial
>responsibility for a mailing list and would have to provide an
>example. This could include such things as submitting spam
>complaints to unsubscribe, posting tests, making specious free
>speech arguments, and the like.
>
>4. The nominations would be converted to e-mail, which would be
>then evaluated by the list of volunteers who would be on the mailing
>list.
We could do this pretty easily via Lyris. I can donate a site on my
server for this purpose. Or see below...
>5. If the majority of voters voted to approve the nomination, then
>it would be "published".
>
>6. Access to the published list would be by request and nomination.
>The same "cabal"
(TINC)
>of volunteers who approve nominations for the list would also
>approve access. However, it would be permitted for a nominee to tell
>a user why they were being rejected, including revealing the
>nomination.
>
>7. It needs a name. Something obvious like "clueless luser list" appeals.
Richard Rognlie came up with "LUSER":
Lame
User
Systemic
Eradication
Repository
I have to admit, it has a certain historic appeal to it.
>8. The cabal who put people on the list would also have to hear
>appeals. It could be amusing.
Hence why I want to play.
>I'm willing to host it.
Terrific. Depending on the technical requirements, note that I'm also
willing to host it on my Lyris server; I can set up a site devoted to
this purpose. But if you're willing to host it, that's great.
>Should we discuss the mechanism here or should I set up a list to
>discuss the mechanism on (which would turn into the nomination and
>appeal list).
I think a list to discuss it is an excellent idea. Sign me up. Here's
my subscription confirmation:
[OK]
Spam complaint to be filed later. ;-)
>Once we describe the mechanism, I will implement it. I will be
>willing to include various means of access, which could include DNS,
>web page, and so forth.
Same here. Implementation is the toughest part for me, at least in
the near term -- but I (too) would be happy to donate DNS, web, list
server, etc. And I'd also be willing to purchase the domain; one more
domain won't make much of a difference here.
__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio vince@vjs.org
From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 17 06:42:34 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA13621; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 06:35:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sendmail.cisto.org (unknown [195.97.240.29])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C690617EC9
for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 06:35:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from quill.local ([194.230.118.67])
by sendmail.cisto.org (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26853;
Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:37:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from norbert@localhost)
by quill.local (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id fAHEWhY22950;
Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:32:43 +0100
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:32:43 +0100
Message-Id: <200111171432.fAHEWhY22950@quill.local>
From: Norbert Bollow
Prefer-Language: de, en, fr
To: bill.luckett@ptk.org
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.20011116094919.010a9aa0@mail.ptk.org> (message from
Bill Luckett on Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:49:19 -0600)
Subject: Re: Advice on list manager
References: <3.0.1.32.20011116094919.010a9aa0@mail.ptk.org>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> So instead of:
>
> "To: some_list@ptk.org "
>
> Management wants:
>
> "To: Bill Luckett member #12345 "
>
> Well, ezmlm/qmail can't do it. Does anyone know a list manager/MTA combo
> that can do this?
I'm pretty sure that it's relatively easy to hack qmail to make
this possible: Look at the qmail-verh patch. It replaces ##L
with the localpart of the recipient's email address, and ##H
with the hostname. What you want is to use this patch and add
code to it to do a database lookup on the recipient's email
address to get your "Bill Luckett member #12345" string, and
replace some magical string (e.g. "##C") with this comment
string.
Then you're done. Configure ezmlm to remove the To: header and
add
To: ##C
instead. The hacked qmail will take of the rest.
Greetings, Norbert.
--
A member of FreeDevelopers and the DotGNU Steering Committee: dotgnu.org
Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland)
Tel +41 1 972 20 59 Fax +41 1 972 20 69 http://thinkcoach.com
Your own domain with all your Mailman lists: $15/month http://cisto.com
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 10:28:12 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA07644; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E620317EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:19:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.216.42.51] (A17-216-42-51.apple.com [17.216.42.51])
by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fARICnd01755
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:12:50 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:10:15 -0800
Subject: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To:
Message-ID:
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Here's a question for the masses.
I am seeing more and more messages of the form "I know this is off-topic,
but..." -- things where the poster knows and admits upfront it doesn't
belong on a list, but has decided to send it anyway.
These drive me crazy. Innocent mistakes and naivete are things I can deal
with and I try to be patient with those people, but here are folks who know
up-front what they're doing is wrong, because they are apologizing in
advance.
What I can't decide is whether this is a problem, or whether any 'cure'
would be worse than the disease. On the one hand, I see this kind of
side-chatter as community building (mostly, sometimes, it's just clueless
people, but a lot of it is mining of a trusted community for non-topic
information). On the other hand, these things can lead towards an attitude
of "topic is optional", and some of the discussions can take off with a life
of their own and clutter up the list, creating all of the problems too much
side-chatter brings.
What do people think about this stuff? How do you manage it? Are you seeing
the same trend I am, with people doing this more often? It seems to me
there's some aspect of laziness here ("rather than find the right place,
I'll ask the close place") but combined with the "know these guys are
clueful" aspect, so there's a mixed message here. Definitely hard to decide
where to draw the lines in the sand, so I thought I"d throw it out and see
what others are thinking.
Chuq
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 11:58:13 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA09185; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sws5.ctd.ornl.gov (sws5.ctd.ornl.gov [160.91.20.105])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 695C717EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 22068 invoked by uid 3995); 27 Nov 2001 19:50:51 -0000
From: "Dave Sill"
Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15363.61083.423597.380227@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:50:51 -0500
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
In-Reply-To:
References:
X-Mailer: VM 6.92 under 21.4 (patch 3) "Academic Rigor" XEmacs Lucid
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA
X-Face: "p~Q]mg{;e*}YR|)&Q/&Q\*~5UWfZX34;5M wrote:
>What do people think about this stuff?
It's inevitable, to some degree, and each list has its own tolerance
level for flagrantly off-topic queries/discussions.
>How do you manage it?
On a list-by-list basis. Some lists require no management, either
because everyone stays on topic or because the OT tolerance is
high. Others require occasional "correction" in the form of gentle
reminders not to post OT or even stern warnings that further OT
postings won't be tolerated, under threat of unsvbscription.
>Are you seeing the same trend I am, with people doing this more
>often?
No, I don't think it's getting any worse.
-Dave
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 12:13:16 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA09328; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C74517EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from admin3 (admin3.rev.net [63.148.93.15])
by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fARK02F10421
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:00:02 -0500
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To:
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:01:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Message-ID: <3C03AAB5.18160.81AE4F@localhost>
In-reply-to:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.0(snapshot 20010925) (server02.rev.net)
X-Archived: msg.1006891202.2v3EjW@server02.rev.net
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 27 Nov 2001, at 10:10, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> I am seeing more and more messages of the form "I know this is off-topic,
> but..." -- things where the poster knows and admits upfront it doesn't
> belong on a list, but has decided to send it anyway.
>
> These drive me crazy. Innocent mistakes and naivete are things I can deal
> with and I try to be patient with those people, but here are folks who know
> up-front what they're doing is wrong, because they are apologizing in
> advance.
I'm not sure I've seen much of an increase recently. I can say that there ar
definitely qualitative differences among the mailing lists I'm on --- some just
send OT stuff as if the list is 'anything goes', others are pretty good about
putting 'OT' or some similar flag [but otherwise freely post 'off topic'] and
others are very 'tight'. The differences are there, but I can't say that I've
seen a real shift-in-style among the lists I hang around...
[...]
> ...It seems to me
> there's some aspect of laziness here ("rather than find the right place,
> I'll ask the close place") but combined with the "know these guys are
> clueful" aspect, so there's a mixed message here.
But, not exactly 'lazy' --- I think you're vastly underestimating the hassle
and the entry barrier to dropping into a new, focused forum to ask a one-time
question.
I do try to do that and I can attest that it hurts: finding the right
newsgroup, scan the last few weeks to get the sense of the group, check out the
FAQ, *THEN* ask my question, follow the newsgroup for a few days to see if I
get any replies, then unsubscribe... [I find it easier to browse and play with
newsgroups than to do a similar cycle with mailing lists]. A *real* PITA for a
one-shot question... So I tend to be forgiving [especially if it is flagged
so that the hard-liners can ignore it/filter it if they choose]...
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pc14678 (vch.reno.nv.us [207.228.2.98])
by pop0.greatbasin.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id fARKsmcN027425
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:54:51 -0800
From: "Jim Poston"
Organization: The Information Dirt Road
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:53:49 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
Reply-To: Jim.Poston@bigfoot.com
Message-ID: <3C038CDD.7774.45A3AB2@localhost>
In-reply-to:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 27 Nov 2001 at 10:10, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> What do people think about this stuff? How do you manage it?
I don't allow it. I started the list to focus on a topic. Sometimes
a particular subject might not be clearly on-topic or off-topic, so I
might let such a discussion go for a while. But those discussions
which everyone agrees are off-topic are not allowed.
As you said, sometimes there is a sense of community when people have
been on a list for a while. You grow to trust the people on the list
more than you do some "strangers". So, when there seems to be a
need, I create a companion list, restricted to members of the
original list, but unrestricted as to topic. Kinda like the water
cooler or lunchroom at work; at your desk you concentrate on work,
but in those "social" areas, non-work activities are usually
permitted.
-- Jim
jim.poston@bigfoot.com
<<< 'NO! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.' -Yoda- >>>
-- Jim
Jim.Poston@bigfoot.com
<<< Don't blame me -- I voted Klingon.
>>>
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 13:29:35 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA10316; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:19:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.vjs.org (achilles.vjs.org [162.33.212.173])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7D417EB6
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [63.49.240.156] (162.33.212.171) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP
(Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:10:05 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:18:32 -0500
To: Chuq Von Rospach ,
From: Vince Sabio
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
** Sometime around 10:10 -0800 11/27/01, Chuq Von Rospach sent everyone:
>What do people think about this stuff? How do you manage it? Are you seeing
>the same trend I am, with people doing this more often? It seems to me
>there's some aspect of laziness here ("rather than find the right place,
>I'll ask the close place") but combined with the "know these guys are
>clueful" aspect, so there's a mixed message here. Definitely hard to decide
>where to draw the lines in the sand, so I thought I"d throw it out and see
>what others are thinking.
As you probably know, the listmoms who manage the potpourri of lists
on my server take a pretty hard line when it comes to staying on
topic. We quash off-topic threads pretty quickly, filter them at the
server (via either subject line or message body content), and often
inform the list that the thread has been killed for being off-topic
-- a not-terribly-subtle reminder to stay on topic.
We take this hard line because we've found that many of the primary
contributors to our lists tend to be busy professionals, and they
have a pretty low S/N threshold at which they will simply unsubscribe.
FWIW, it is not uncommon for us to receive off-list messages of
thanks whenever we kill an off-topic thread. It seems that the folks
who enjoy -- or even tolerate -- such threads are well in the
minority, though of course it varies from [off] topic to [off] topic.
That is to say, "there's off-topic and then there's off-topic."
As an example of one [off] topic on which we held the line, but
received a good deal of criticism from list members, we prohibited
discussion of the events of Sept. 11th on our lists (and this was not
for lack of concern over the events -- I was at my apartment 9 blocks
from WTC that day, and witnessed the entire event). We received no
messages of thanks for that one. But allowing one off-topic thread to
survive sets a bad precedent, and weakens our position, for further
off-topic threads.
Finally, I should mention that I agree with the community-building
aspect of off-topic threads -- so, several years ago, we created an
"off-topic mailing list." Anything that is *not* on-topic on the
"production" lists is fair game for the off-topic list. The list has
taken on a life of its own, routinely hitting 200 posts/day, and once
breaking the 500-post mark. On several occasions, list members have
arranged to meet each other, sometimes travling thousands of miles to
do so. And we do have one marriage that has come about as a direct
result of the list. We are, however, pretty rabid about _not_
allowing any topics that belong on the production lists, and also
about moving off-topic threads from the production lists to the
off-topic list.
Hope this was of some use, Chuq.
Cheers,
Vince
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 13:44:34 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA10514; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D0E17EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:38:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hppav ([12.79.160.204]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP
id <20011127213814.SAUT5540.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@hppav>
for ;
Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:38:14 +0000
Message-ID: <00eb01c1778b$d1913b00$0101a8c0@hppav>
From: "larry lunt"
To: "GreatCirclePost"
Subject: I know this is off topic but...
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:38:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
THIS is my biggest peave and drives me crazy on lists. I I think it is
rude. The person is poisoning their own well by introducing culch.
Lar
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 13:59:34 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA10667; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:55:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8EE17EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.216.42.51] (A17-216-42-51.apple.com [17.216.42.51])
by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fARLZud13138
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:35:57 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:36:00 -0800
Subject: Interesting dichotomy.
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To:
Message-ID:
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Intersting answers on the off-topic stuff. I already see a clear dichotomy
on the responses.
How we handle it depends on whether we see the list as topic-focussed or
community-focussed. Are others noticing that?
The easiest way to define what I mean is this:
Is the list "about the San Jose Sharks"? Or is the list "for San Jose Sharks
fans"?
Maybe a simple difference, but semantically, quite important.
Hmm. I think there's a nugget of useful stuff in there, that might help
define lists in ways people can better know what they're getting into before
they subscribe.. Have to ponder that.
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 14:14:38 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA10406; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.212])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565D517EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1]
by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 168pnH-00071s-00; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:29:31 -0800
To: Chuq Von Rospach
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach
of "Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:10:15 PST."
References:
X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9
YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\
X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff
X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:29:31 -0800
Message-ID: <27023.1006896571@kanga.nu>
From: J C Lawrence
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:10:15 -0800
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> I am seeing more and more messages of the form "I know this is
> off-topic, but..." -- things where the poster knows and admits
> upfront it doesn't belong on a list, but has decided to send it
> anyway.
I tend to reward such with a warning followed by an automatic
unsubscribe. Brick bats to be sure, but they seem to work.
> What I can't decide is whether this is a problem, or whether any
> 'cure' would be worse than the disease. On the one hand, I see
> this kind of side-chatter as community building (mostly,
> sometimes, it's just clueless people, but a lot of it is mining of
> a trusted community for non-topic information).
When I do allow them, which is rare (I tend to hand moderate or
install MLM-side filters to auto-hold such posts) I often predefine
a max length for the thread ala by inserting a comment in the
initial posting ala:
EdNote: This is pretty off-topic so let's keep this thread short
if possible. Any messages to this thread after will be
automatically rejected/deleted. Thanks.
For those I don't predefine a length, if the thread lives too long
I'll make a list posting ala:
Writing as list owner:
This thread is getting pretty far off topic. Let's call it
quits for now or move it to another forum. I'll be rejecting
posts to this thread (unless you give a damned good reason why
not) starting at . Thanks.
> On the other hand, these things can lead towards an attitude of
> "topic is optional", and some of the discussions can take off with
> a life of their own and clutter up the list, creating all of the
> problems too much side-chatter brings.
I try and build lists where the membership have the general view
that they need to aggressively defend topicality. This adds to my
moderation overhead as I get a steady stream of, "Would a post like
XXX be Okay for the list?" which is kind of funny as less that 1% of
those queries are for posts/topics that would be off-topic.
Of course the sad aspect is that the one's most concerned by
topicality are also the one's I most want posting (and the one's
least concerned...).
> What do people think about this stuff? How do you manage it? Are
> you seeing the same trend I am, with people doing this more often?
One thing I've done is to create a parallel list specifically for
such off-topic out-of-band conversations. I then redirect
marginal/off-topic posts there as they occur on the main list (with
a note to the poster that I did and why). It has a smaller
membership than the main list of course, but provides a valuable
venting/chat ground for the main list. Typical traffic for the meta
list includes such things as job offers, I'm available for work,
social meetings and dinners related to the main list, not really
on-topic news events (eg one fellow had one of his user's name their
new baby after his product/service (really!)), and so forth.
> It seems to me there's some aspect of laziness here ("rather than
> find the right place, I'll ask the close place") but combined with
> the "know these guys are clueful" aspect, so there's a mixed
> message here. Definitely hard to decide where to draw the lines in
> the sand, so I thought I"d throw it out and see what others are
> thinking.
The main criteria I apply are:
Can/will it help (someone, the list, life in general)?
What are the risks (eg is the topic itself flammable/distractive)?
How easy will it be to control?
What perception will it create of the list, and how might it
change current perception?
Rigidly inflexible topicality becomes inhuman and ultimately
alienating. Adding a little life now and then (eg there were a
number of birth announcements on one of my technical lists) along
with other humanising factors can do a lot to build both a community
and a social network.
Not that you don't know this Chuq...
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 15:14:34 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA11538; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78A317EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:02:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from admin3 (admin3.rev.net [63.148.93.15])
by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fARN28F17268
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:02:08 -0500
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To:
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:03:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Interesting dichotomy.
Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Message-ID: <3C03D563.20706.1286D7A@localhost>
In-reply-to:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.0(snapshot 20010925) (server02.rev.net)
X-Archived: msg.1006902128.e826N6@server02.rev.net
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 27 Nov 2001, at 13:36, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> Intersting answers on the off-topic stuff. I already see a clear dichotomy
> on the responses.
>
> How we handle it depends on whether we see the list as topic-focussed or
> community-focussed. Are others noticing that?
Well, I thought I was about the only person who commented on being tolerant and
I now see that I misinterpreted teh question. Theres offtopic and
**OOFFFFTTOOPPIICC**. when I said that I tend to give the OT folk a break, I
was only referring to baby-offtopic, not mega-offtopic. In case I was
misinterpreted, I *hate* the wildly OT submissions, whether flagged with an
'OT' or not. I don't care if it is Raining in Boise or that you had your
grandkids over for thansgiving...but...
I can give an example of the kind of OT that I am kindly toward (and not just
because it was me..:o)) -- you can reflect [if you remember my thread or two I
started about about this] whether you were outraged at my temerity for
'polluting' l-m or not). No one complained and I didn't sense any outrage: I
asked here a question or two about spam and dealing with it. I prefaced my
messages with the acknowledgment that it was OT for list-managers but I knew
you folks were both knowledgable about, and generally passionate about, spam.
I could have gone to a spam-discussion forum, gone through the dance to join
the forum and be a reasonable participant, then asked my question and
disappeared... but gee, asking here didn't seem like a capital crime... I
guess I may have underestimated just how vitriolic some of you can be about
this kind of thing....
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:24:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from burns.conectiva (burns.conectiva [10.0.0.4])
by perninha.conectiva.com.br (Postfix) with SMTP id 312DE38BD4
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:24:08 -0300 (EST)
Received: (qmail 26918 invoked by uid 0); 27 Nov 2001 23:20:55 -0000
Received: from duckman.distro.conectiva (10.0.17.2)
by burns.conectiva with SMTP; 27 Nov 2001 23:20:55 -0000
Received: (from localhost user: 'riel', uid#500) by duckman.distro.conectiva
with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:23:53 -0200
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:23:53 -0200 (BRST)
From: Rik van Riel
X-X-Sender:
To:
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org
X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Vince Sabio wrote:
> Finally, I should mention that I agree with the community-building
> aspect of off-topic threads -- so, several years ago, we created an
> "off-topic mailing list."
Believe it or not, I did this with an IRC channel and even
there it works. Yes, there's an IRC channel which is almost
purely on topic, really ;))
And yes, #kernelnewbies is kept on-topic by peer pressure,
the occasional channel admin typing a (short-lived) /ban;
most importantly, however, is the #offtopic channel, which
provides people with a good place to continue their offtopic
discussions ... if people want a discussion there's no way
you can stop it, but you can always move it ;)
regards,
Rik
--
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 16:16:03 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA12126; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:59:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aloha.webkahuna.com (aloha.webkahuna.com [207.26.54.245])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677AE17EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from janet.dallas.net (aux-209-217-59-63.oklahoma.net [209.217.59.63])
by aloha.webkahuna.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fARNx7M18889;
Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:59:07 -0600
From: Janet Detter Margul
To: Chuq Von Rospach
Cc:
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:59:08 -0600
Organization: Dueling Modems
Reply-To: janet@dm.net
Message-ID:
References:
In-Reply-To:
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
My list handles that by labeling those in the subject line with the
prefix TAN: (for tangent) people can filter them out and I turn a
blind eye to them. This, of course, only works when traffic volume is
not an issue. It works for us.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Janet Detter Margul | Real women don't have hot flashes...
WeeBe Graphics Plano, Texas | they have power surges!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
See my jewelry at http://www.weebedazzled.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 17:18:42 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA13059; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from foobar.noderunner.net (foobar.noderunner.net [199.34.34.27])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C0D17EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:06:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from widget (unknown [65.116.72.97])
by foobar.noderunner.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id BF63FB6381; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:00:10 -0500 (EST)
From: "Rachel Blackman"
To: "'Rik van Riel'" ,
Subject: RE: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:06:03 -0800
Message-ID: <8DB43C985096704C96D985618239F6AF12BF81@SILVER.quicksilvertech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3311
In-Reply-To:
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2526.0000
Importance: Normal
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> And yes, #kernelnewbies is kept on-topic by peer pressure,
> the occasional channel admin typing a (short-lived) /ban;
> most importantly, however, is the #offtopic channel, which
> provides people with a good place to continue their offtopic
> discussions ... if people want a discussion there's no way
> you can stop it, but you can always move it ;)
I think in general once any list reaches a certain 'critical mass'
(which may vary from list to list), it becomes increasingly difficult to
eliminate Off-Topic conversation, and providing an alternative is
seemingly the most effective way of dealing with it.
One list which I help admin has what are regarded by some subscribers as
'draconian' rules on overquoting, use of language, staying on-topic,
etc. However, a lot of the subscribers really appreciate the rules. We
offer an alternative, as well; a 'shadow' list, where all the main posts
are mirrored to and where off-topic replies can be continued free of
administrative measures. People can subscribe to the main list, turn
off mail for that one, and subscribe to the shadow list...then they can
post to either. Since the main list is mirrored to the shadow list,
it's easy to reply to a post from the main list and move it onto shadow.
Since the shadow list was created, I've seen a lot less complaints about
how the main list's on-topic nature is enforced. :)
--
Rachel Blackman
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 20:43:57 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA15288; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from marlborough.cnchost.com (marlborough.concentric.net [207.155.248.14])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F1E17EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:35:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (root@localhost)
by marlborough.cnchost.com
id XAA08541; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:35:49 -0500 (EST)
[ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14]
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011127200852.02e9bfc0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: inet-list@vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:28:48 -0800
To:
From: JC Dill
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 10:10 AM 11/27/2001 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>What do people think about this stuff? How do you manage it? Are you seeing
>the same trend I am, with people doing this more often? It seems to me
>there's some aspect of laziness here ("rather than find the right place,
>I'll ask the close place") but combined with the "know these guys are
>clueful" aspect, so there's a mixed message here. Definitely hard to decide
>where to draw the lines in the sand, so I thought I"d throw it out and see
>what others are thinking.
I'm on a lot of different horse topic discussion lists, including old and
established mailing lists, newer mailing lists, and a newsgroup. One of
the lists is eventers-l, an old and well established discussion list on the
fairly narrow topic of things pertaining to horses that compete in Combined
Training aka Eventing (see for more
information about this sport).
At some point the list manager started publicly (posting "to the list")
"slapping" people with a dead fish for off-topic posts. As a result,
people are a lot more careful to keep their posts on-topic, and when
veering off-topic (but not actually *going* off-topic, people are very
careful to have some sort of ObEventers in their post) they request their
favorite fish. It's been AGES since the list received any actual off-topic
posts. I'm not quite sure how this all came about, but it's been VERY
successful in keeping this list totally on-topic, even in these
"interesting times" when people seem unable to stick to on-topic posts on
all the other lists (especially the Yahoo! Groups lists).
I wonder if part of the reason this is so successful on Eventers-L is
because the sport itself isn't for wimps. You have to be a certain type of
person to want to do all 3 phases of Eventing, and if you have the drive
and focus to Event, you probably care more (than, say, the average AOLer or
WebTVer) about having a list that stays on-topic. I'm managing a list on
Natural Horsemanship, and I haven't been as successful at getting people to
*want* to stay on-topic on this list as they *want* to stay on-topic on the
Eventers list. Perhaps I need to haul out the fish. :-)
jc (if this were off-topic, I'd ask for salmon, please, with hollandaise)
From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 27 20:58:26 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA15458; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:50:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.212])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349ED17EAF
for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:50:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1]
by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 168wiS-0000EF-00; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:53:00 -0800
To: Chuq Von Rospach
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: Interesting dichotomy.
In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach
of "Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:36:00 PST."
References:
X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9
YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\
X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff
X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:53:00 -0800
Message-ID: <882.1006923180@kanga.nu>
From: J C Lawrence
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:36:00 -0800
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> How we handle it depends on whether we see the list as
> topic-focussed or community-focussed. Are others noticing that?
There's also a middle ground. I primarily run topic-focused lists,
but realise that the success of those lists is due to their
membership communities. As a result I massage topic with one hand
and the community with the other. As with most such things its a
balancing act.
> Is the list "about the San Jose Sharks"? Or is the list "for San
> Jose Sharks fans"?
Then there's, "The list is about Foo and helping people with/do
Foo." Its not a simple clear cut dichotomy.
Most of my lists not only have the topic definition of but have a base purpose of "improve and
advance the state of the art." The state of the art is advance by
people and their contributions, and so social engineering and human
relations are a large (huge) factor. At the same time they can't
dominate or else you've abandoned the list purpose in pursuit of ego
stroking.
--
J C Lawrence Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
---------(*) He lived as a devil, eh?
claw@kanga.nu Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Reviled did I live; evil I did deliver.
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 28 04:28:26 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA23651; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 04:22:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br (perninha.conectiva.com.br [200.250.58.156])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A1517EC2
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 04:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from burns.conectiva (burns.conectiva [10.0.0.4])
by perninha.conectiva.com.br (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E23E38C97
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:22:00 -0300 (EST)
Received: (qmail 15672 invoked by uid 0); 28 Nov 2001 12:18:48 -0000
Received: from duckman.distro.conectiva (10.0.17.2)
by burns.conectiva with SMTP; 28 Nov 2001 12:18:48 -0000
Received: (from localhost user: 'riel', uid#500) by duckman.distro.conectiva
with ESMTP id ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:21:55 -0200
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:21:55 -0200 (BRST)
From: Rik van Riel
X-X-Sender:
To: Rachel Blackman
Cc:
Subject: RE: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
In-Reply-To: <8DB43C985096704C96D985618239F6AF12BF81@SILVER.quicksilvertech.com>
Message-ID:
X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org
X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Rachel Blackman wrote:
> > And yes, #kernelnewbies is kept on-topic by peer pressure,
> > the occasional channel admin typing a (short-lived) /ban;
> > most importantly, however, is the #offtopic channel, which
>
> I think in general once any list reaches a certain 'critical mass'
> (which may vary from list to list), it becomes increasingly difficult
> to eliminate Off-Topic conversation, and providing an alternative is
> seemingly the most effective way of dealing with it.
Actually, keeping things on-topic got _easier_ after the
channel reached the critical mass of 100 people. I guess
this must have something to do with peer pressure ;)))
regards,
Rik
--
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 28 12:28:50 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA29607; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC6117EAF
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from cnorman@localhost)
by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) id MAA14895;
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200111282025.MAA14895@shell7.ba.best.com>
From: Cyndi Norman
To: chuqui@plaidworks.com
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com
In-reply-to: (message from Chuq Von
Rospach on Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:10:15 -0800)
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
Reply-To: cnorman@best.com
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Hi Chuq, the answer really varies with the list I think. And of course can
change over time as the list changes.
Funny that Vince should mention not making an exception for Sept 11th,
because I made an exception for that topic on my list, though people were
not allowed to put forward racial and religious stereotypes (no one
tried...it just worried me). Some lists I'm a member of banned discussion
entirely, but they all allowed what I consider essential, off topic or not:
members in NYC or DC posting that they were okay.
My main list, Immune, is the biggest. I do not allow off topic posts at
all. But the topic is so broad that it includes pretty much everything
someone would want to post. The focus is on a particular grouping of
health problems and toxicity issues, but any post about health is on topic.
Any post about how someone is doing emotionally is on topic. So are posts
about the environment, the health industry, health politics, etc.
Ironically, even Sept 11th was on topic in most ways because our discussion
focused on the toxic effects of the fires, smoke, asbestos, etc and the
lack of protection for rescue workers...which grew into a website I
designed.
So what's off topic? Virus warnings, chain mail, general chatting,
television shows and movies (unless they're discussing a particular health
issue), etc. I also gently cut off any discussions that get out of hand
and vere into off-topic areas (I write the participants and ask them to
take it private). I discourage joke and inspirational forwards but allow
the occasional one.
Another list I run, Immune-Survivors, is more of a support group so
anything goes there. I just keep out spam and attachments.
A third list, LCVeg, is so low traffic (about 100 lurkers!) that I'll
accept anything that even vaugely fits. But if traffic picks up, I'll keep
it to food, diet, health, and exercise.
The fourth list, Immune-Admin, is announcement only so not an issue; I'm
the only one who posts.
And then I started a fifth list, using Yahoogroups, and it's only to
discuss a particular project I'm coordinating. Whenever some one has
posted anything off topic (including asking if they can discuss related
projects elsewhere), I've asked them not to (an announcement of the related
group is okay).
There's actually an advantage to running so many groups. Like when someone
posted to the project group asking for advice on nontoxic means of getting
stains out of carpet, I told her to post to Immune, where such a question
was perfectly on topic. I rarely have to tell someone not to post, I just
tell them post there instead.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:10:15 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
What I can't decide is whether this is a problem, or whether any 'cure'
would be worse than the disease. On the one hand, I see this kind of
side-chatter as community building (mostly, sometimes, it's just clueless
people, but a lot of it is mining of a trusted community for non-topic
information). On the other hand, these things can lead towards an attitude
of "topic is optional", and some of the discussions can take off with a life
of their own and clutter up the list, creating all of the problems too much
side-chatter brings.
It's a trade off. I've found that lists that allow chatter tend to have
more people and more traffic--Including more on-topic traffic in
general--than lists that are stricter with posts. There is another list
similar to Immune that is very chatty and it was actually a spin off from
my list years ago for other reasons. Because many subscribers to one are
also on the other, they compliment each other. I like keeping my list more
focused on quality information and I don't feel guilty about it because
this other list has the chatter for people who want it (I have posting
priviledges on that list but do not subscribe--I find the discussion there
to be more plentiful but less useful).
Whatever you decide, I recommend you make some rules about it. Either
don't allow off topic posts or allow them but only if people mark them as
such. "OT:" in the beginning of the subject line works well and lets
people who filter messages weed them out. Putting OT elsewhere in the
subject is not as helpful. You might want to allow certain kinds of off
topic messages (personal announcements) but not others (jokes, chain mail).
Another trick is to post the dilemna to the mailing list and ask
subscribers to give their opinion. I find this extremely useful for
backing up decisions I make. I bet you'll find a lot of people who hate
the clutter. Of course you don't have to go with majority rule, you're
just getting feedback. I suggest you insist all comments go to you
privately and not to the list, but that you wait a couple weeks then
summerize the results on list. A way to avoid on list replies is to create
a poll on a website and then post the URL.
I've used this successfully for the should replies go to the list or the
poster problem. I think the latter because to do the former breaks things.
But I constantly get requests to change it. No one writes to say don't
change things, but why would they? When I did a poll, the majority said
they liked it the way it was. Now when I get bitter complaints about how
hard it is to post to the list (use reply-to-all sheesh!), I can tell them
about the poll and they shut up.
Anyway, good luck and I hope it works out for you.
Cyndi
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com
http://www.tikvah.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 28 13:12:17 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA29966; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host4.ctc.net (host4.mail.vnet.net [166.82.1.69])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731D717EAF
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:57:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from katie.vnet.net ([166.82.1.7]) by host4.ctc.net
(InterMail vK.4.03.04.01 201-232-130-101 license 75504bbd3e802bc4034a0097f57d493d)
with ESMTP id <20011128205749.NHMS357.host4@katie.vnet.net>
for ;
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:57:49 -0500
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
by katie.vnet.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA19303
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:57:26 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:57:25 -0500 (EST)
From: murr rhame
To:
Subject: RE: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I have not noticed any increase in "I know this is off-topic"
posts of late. Judging by the replies so far, this is one of
those problems that doesn't have a simple and universal solution.
My reaction depends on how far off-topic the thread is and how
likely it is to be ignored. On my tech discussion lists, I clamp
down hard on divisive topics like guns, religion and politics.
If it's a distantly related tech topic, I may let the thread run
for a while...
One list I subscribed to declared a limited amnesty on political
discussions for a few days after September 11th. The list was a
bit loud for a few days but there was no apparent lasting
damage. I declared World Trade Center related topics strictly
off-limits with mixed results. Some folks liked it. Some were
pissed that they couldn't rant on their favorite forum.
- murr -
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 28 13:28:27 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA00601; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.inet.fi (smtp.inet.fi [192.89.123.192])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C05917ECC
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from adsl-153.dyn.arenanet.fi ([194.241.254.153]:1205 "HELO pc001")
by smtp.inet.fi with SMTP id ;
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:20:18 +0200
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011128232338.0176d590@mail.inet.fi>
X-Sender: xyzxyz-1@mail.inet.fi
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:23:38 +0200
To: tomi.snellman@kolumbus.fi
From: Christel Nyman
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Hi Chuq, the answer really varies with the list I think. And of course can
change over time as the list changes.
Funny that Vince should mention not making an exception for Sept 11th,
because I made an exception for that topic on my list, though people were
not allowed to put forward racial and religious stereotypes (no one
tried...it just worried me). Some lists I'm a member of banned discussion
entirely, but they all allowed what I consider essential, off topic or not:
members in NYC or DC posting that they were okay.
My main list, Immune, is the biggest. I do not allow off topic posts at
all. But the topic is so broad that it includes pretty much everything
someone would want to post. The focus is on a particular grouping of
health problems and toxicity issues, but any post about health is on topic.
Any post about how someone is doing emotionally is on topic. So are posts
about the environment, the health industry, health politics, etc.
Ironically, even Sept 11th was on topic in most ways because our discussion
focused on the toxic effects of the fires, smoke, asbestos, etc and the
lack of protection for rescue workers...which grew into a website I
designed.
So what's off topic? Virus warnings, chain mail, general chatting,
television shows and movies (unless they're discussing a particular health
issue), etc. I also gently cut off any discussions that get out of hand
and vere into off-topic areas (I write the participants and ask them to
take it private). I discourage joke and inspirational forwards but allow
the occasional one.
Another list I run, Immune-Survivors, is more of a support group so
anything goes there. I just keep out spam and attachments.
A third list, LCVeg, is so low traffic (about 100 lurkers!) that I'll
accept anything that even vaugely fits. But if traffic picks up, I'll keep
it to food, diet, health, and exercise.
The fourth list, Immune-Admin, is announcement only so not an issue; I'm
the only one who posts.
And then I started a fifth list, using Yahoogroups, and it's only to
discuss a particular project I'm coordinating. Whenever some one has
posted anything off topic (including asking if they can discuss related
projects elsewhere), I've asked them not to (an announcement of the related
group is okay).
There's actually an advantage to running so many groups. Like when someone
posted to the project group asking for advice on nontoxic means of getting
stains out of carpet, I told her to post to Immune, where such a question
was perfectly on topic. I rarely have to tell someone not to post, I just
tell them post there instead.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:10:15 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
What I can't decide is whether this is a problem, or whether any 'cure'
would be worse than the disease. On the one hand, I see this kind of
side-chatter as community building (mostly, sometimes, it's just clueless
people, but a lot of it is mining of a trusted community for non-topic
information). On the other hand, these things can lead towards an attitude
of "topic is optional", and some of the discussions can take off with a
life
of their own and clutter up the list, creating all of the problems too much
side-chatter brings.
It's a trade off. I've found that lists that allow chatter tend to have
more people and more traffic--Including more on-topic traffic in
general--than lists that are stricter with posts. There is another list
similar to Immune that is very chatty and it was actually a spin off from
my list years ago for other reasons. Because many subscribers to one are
also on the other, they compliment each other. I like keeping my list more
focused on quality information and I don't feel guilty about it because
this other list has the chatter for people who want it (I have posting
priviledges on that list but do not subscribe--I find the discussion there
to be more plentiful but less useful).
Whatever you decide, I recommend you make some rules about it. Either
don't allow off topic posts or allow them but only if people mark them as
such. "OT:" in the beginning of the subject line works well and lets
people who filter messages weed them out. Putting OT elsewhere in the
subject is not as helpful. You might want to allow certain kinds of off
topic messages (personal announcements) but not others (jokes, chain mail).
Another trick is to post the dilemna to the mailing list and ask
subscribers to give their opinion. I find this extremely useful for
backing up decisions I make. I bet you'll find a lot of people who hate
the clutter. Of course you don't have to go with majority rule, you're
just getting feedback. I suggest you insist all comments go to you
privately and not to the list, but that you wait a couple weeks then
summerize the results on list. A way to avoid on list replies is to create
a poll on a website and then post the URL.
I've used this successfully for the should replies go to the list or the
poster problem. I think the latter because to do the former breaks things.
But I constantly get requests to change it. No one writes to say don't
change things, but why would they? When I did a poll, the majority said
they liked it the way it was. Now when I get bitter complaints about how
hard it is to post to the list (use reply-to-all sheesh!), I can tell them
about the poll and they shut up.
Anyway, good luck and I hope it works out for you.
Cyndi
--
____________________________________________________________________________
___
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi
Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG)
cyndi@consultclarity.com
http://www.tikvah.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists
http://www.immuneweb.org/
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 28 13:57:16 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA00998; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F8C17EAF
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:48:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.216.42.51] (A17-216-42-51.apple.com [17.216.42.51])
by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fASLlqm27278;
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:47:53 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:47:57 -0800
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: murr rhame ,
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 11/28/01 12:57 PM, "murr rhame" wrote:
> One list I subscribed to declared a limited amnesty on political
> discussions for a few days after September 11th.
FWIW, we let each list more or less self-police itself on this. Some went on
as normal. Some went into shock and shut up. Some got together and helped
each other out. Of all the lists I run, only one spun out of control and
needed us to call in the baby blue helmets to get back under control, but it
was one that we keep the swat team on standby anyway....
It was one of those situations that we all, I think, needed ways to come to
grips and deal with, and for some of us (and I include myself, I was very
much in shock for about two weeks) needed friends and family around us to
help come to grips with things. And some of the lists definitely qualify as
friends and family.
I know if was awfully tough to start seeing the bouncing addresses that
started popping up on my lists. But I was very heartened to see how everyone
came together (one list notiwthstanding, and it was literally two yahoos
whoo spun it out of control there) and pulled together. Makes it a lot
easier to trust folks to 'do the right thing' later.... FWIW.
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 28 15:42:15 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA02403; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:33:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trex.uia.net (mail.uia.net [66.146.0.5])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC9217E8E
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lehel.goldmark.private (39.16190.uia.net [131.161.90.39])
by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fASNXXI00287
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:33:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost)
by lehel.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 169ECl-0004AM-00
for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:33:27 -0800
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:33:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeffrey Goldberg
X-X-Sender:
Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg
To: List Managers Mailing list
Subject: Re: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011128232338.0176d590@mail.inet.fi>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Christel Nyman wrote:
> Funny that Vince should mention not making an exception for Sept 11th,
> because I made an exception for that topic on my list,
I did not make an exception, and one some lists tried to pre-empt by
pointing people to other places. But for one list it became a topic for
list administration as went off the air as a consequence (list management
server is in lower manhatten, and I had to "manually" mail a local copy of
the membership list letting them know.
In general, I am fairly hard-nosed about things. When one list got into a
Microsoft bashing episode (which started as an on-topic comment), I had to
actually use majordomo's taboo_body feature to "moderate" anything
mentioning microsoft. I've also stomped on other off-topic discussion
through public scolding. I have also banned certain addresses from
posting after repeated refusal to take private and public advice.
One thing I don't do is "let peer pressure" take care of it. I consider
meta postings (postings about what is and isn't appropriate to post) to be
the exclusive perogative of the list manager. Though I have in the past
explicitly set up a meta list to discuss primary list policy.
I try to intervene before list members feel the need to act themselves
(and before they unsubscribe).
So I am a relatively heavy handed list manager.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 28 20:28:39 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA05795; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:21:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ajax.cnchost.com (unknown [207.155.248.31])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5553717E8E
for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (root@localhost)
by ajax.cnchost.com
id XAA15575; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:20:55 -0500 (EST)
[ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14]
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011128200955.02ed1ea0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: inet-list@vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:13:40 -0800
To:
From: JC Dill
Subject: RE: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 03:57 PM 11/28/2001 -0500, murr rhame wrote:
>I have not noticed any increase in "I know this is off-topic"
>posts of late. Judging by the replies so far, this is one of
>those problems that doesn't have a simple and universal solution.
>My reaction depends on how far off-topic the thread is and how
>likely it is to be ignored. On my tech discussion lists, I clamp
>down hard on divisive topics like guns, religion and politics.
>If it's a distantly related tech topic, I may let the thread run
>for a while...
The problem I have is that many people think that any computer related or
Internet related topic is "on-topic" on an Internet discussion group. Many
of them are new, and have no idea how to find another group to ask their
off-topic computer or Internet related question, so they want to ask the
group they know.
IME, if you let a single thread like this go unchecked (and have a lot of
novice Internet users on your list), the threads multiply like bunnies, and
your most clueful on-topic contributers end up silent, and then leave.
How do other list managers address this problem?
jc
From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 29 08:03:07 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA17201; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br (perninha.conectiva.com.br [200.250.58.156])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE7F17EBA
for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:56:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from burns.conectiva (burns.conectiva [10.0.0.4])
by perninha.conectiva.com.br (Postfix) with SMTP id C2C6E38CB7
for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:56:31 -0300 (EST)
Received: (qmail 28265 invoked by uid 0); 29 Nov 2001 15:53:20 -0000
Received: from duckman.distro.conectiva (10.0.17.2)
by burns.conectiva with SMTP; 29 Nov 2001 15:53:20 -0000
Received: (from localhost user: 'riel', uid#500) by duckman.distro.conectiva
with ESMTP id ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:56:30 -0200
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:56:29 -0200 (BRST)
From: Rik van Riel
X-X-Sender:
To: JC Dill
Cc:
Subject: RE: "I know this is off-topic, but...."
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011128200955.02ed1ea0@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID:
X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org
X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, JC Dill wrote:
> The problem I have is that many people think that any computer related
> or Internet related topic is "on-topic" on an Internet discussion
> group. Many of them are new, and have no idea how to find another
> group to ask their off-topic computer or Internet related question
> How do other list managers address this problem?
I usually try to assist these newbies by kindly explaining
them that (1) their question is better asked in
and (2) their question really isn't appropriate here.
In effect, I kindly hold open the door to where they can get
their answer and hint them to step through it. Only in real
emergencies do I need to kick them through it myself ;)
cheers,
Rik
--
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 30 04:58:49 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA05404; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:50:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clifford.inch.com (ns.biglist.com [216.223.208.40])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 293C717EC9
for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 65477 invoked by uid 501); 30 Nov 2001 12:50:16 -0000
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 07:50:16 -0500
From: Omar Thameen
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: subscriber address in To: field
Message-ID: <20011130075016.A63203@clifford.inch.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
If you have the capability, is there any reason not to place the
subscriber email address in the To: header of list messages,
particularly announcement lists? More and more spam filters are
making a determination based on a simple check for your email
address in the To: or Cc: line. I myself find that I can get rid
of 80-90% of spam in this manner.
I can't see that much is lost when mailing list information can
be placed in other headers, such as those recommended by RFC2369
(List-Help, List-Post, etc.).
Omar
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 30 06:44:11 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA06525; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from parhelion.firedrake.org (unknown [212.135.138.219])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05ABE17EDE
for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from roger by parhelion.firedrake.org with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 169onV-0005iQ-00
for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:37:49 +0000
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:37:49 +0000
From: Roger Burton West
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: subscriber address in To: field
Message-ID: <20011130143749.A21951@firedrake.org>
Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
References: <20011130075016.A63203@clifford.inch.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20011130075016.A63203@clifford.inch.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Full
X-Discordian-Date: Prickle-Prickle, The Aftermath 42 3167
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On or about Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 07:50:16AM -0500, Omar Thameen typed:
>If you have the capability, is there any reason not to place the
>subscriber email address in the To: header of list messages,
>particularly announcement lists? More and more spam filters are
>making a determination based on a simple check for your email
>address in the To: or Cc: line. I myself find that I can get rid
>of 80-90% of spam in this manner.
Yes. If you do this, each message to each subscriber has to be sent out
separately; if you don't need custom header per recipient, more than one
recipient can be included for each copy of the message (typically 100
recipients per message is used), saving bandwidth and propagation delays.
If you're using VERP, of course, then you're already sending out
individual messages, and so you don't lose anything by this.
Roger
From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 30 06:58:53 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA06421; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.gamerz.net (www.gamerz.net [216.181.159.135])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1013417EDE
for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rrognlie@localhost)
by www.gamerz.net (SendmailServer-1.0.1/8.11.1) id fAUEU0230468;
Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:30:00 -0500
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:30:00 -0500
From: Richard Rognlie